|
It's there a more effective enzyme than RuBisCo for splicing molecules that doesn't result in shitloads of toxic byproducts that plants need to produce additional enzymes to deal with?
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:38 |
|
|
i think it's more that rubisco is perfectly balanced on the razor's edge between "can make glucose faster" and "won't usually bind to oxygen" i'd think it'd be easier to put a plant into an anoxic environment and crank up the temperature than it is to try to take the enzyme apart, but apparently borrowing variants from red algae and putting them into food plants is a thing we're doing because science is cool
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 17:19
|
|
|
George posted:gently caress the guy who solved Fermat's last btw shimura's still alive? are you confusing the fact that taniyama's fiancee also committed suicide?
|
|
#
?
Jun 6, 2017 19:20
|
|
|
LP0 ON FIRE posted:i don't know if i like the video.. he mentions sorting. checking sorting can be done in polynomial time, but actually sorting - isn't that np? Cheat sheet here, generally n log n. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorting_algorithm
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 02:04
|
|
|
thank god for simple english (drooling retard) wikipedia https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/P_versus_NP
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 02:11
|
|
|
akadajet posted:thank god for simple english (drooling retard) wikipedia can you dumb this down for me
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 02:25
|
|
|
What is hard to understand about it
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 05:13
|
|
|
yospos programmer threads getting sassy lately
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 05:26
|
|
|
rapeface posted:Cheat sheet here, generally n log n. theoretically there's nothing that proves that there could be something faster depending on which you're using for the appropriate case, or was it proven in any use case? LP0 ON FIRE fucked around with this message at 20:11 on Jun 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 20:07
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:Speaking of this: what's the current best guess as to whether photosynthesis is (a) extremely optimized and pushing the limits of efficiency after billions of years of evolution, or (b) a stupid nature hack full of problems and dumb pathways and scientists will soon be able to make their own better version that lets us have bright green cars that run forever on sunlight and water the most common form (C3) is a lovely hack which is why an improved form (C4) has independently evolved dozens of times most plants are too STUPID to use it though also plant photosynthesis isn't remotely close to photovoltaics but it does make chemical energy which is cool and a solar panel that could make oil would be bonza m8s
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
ConanTheLibrarian posted:the most common form (C3) is a lovely hack which is why an improved form (C4) has independently evolved dozens of times plants don't think, idiot hell fucker
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 20:55
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:plants don't think, idiot hell fucker thats why their stupid numbskull
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:05
|
|
|
LP0 ON FIRE posted:theoretically there's nothing that proves that there could be something faster depending on which you're using for the appropriate case, or was it proven in any use case? ??? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Omega_function ??? O is an upper bound, asymptotic less than or equals. Omega is a lower bound, asymptotic greater than or equals. There are many ways to go about proving something. Induction is often a good strategy. OldAlias fucked around with this message at 05:43 on Jun 8, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
ex n log n is the best, worst and expected case of mergesort. so it's often preferred for its consistency and in general sorting can be said to be n log n right. but quicksort or radix sort or a number of others can be faster depending on how your data is structured, or what it is you're ordering. quicksort has a best case of n but can have a worst case of n^2 if the data is mostly ordered or if the pivot is consistently the largest or smallest element. I hope I'm not stating some obvious poo poo, I don't know what your background is
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:32
|
|
|
thanks that is good info it just sounds like to me sorting (or for now) is sort of np because in any case, you need to keep checking to see if you have the correct answer
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:40
|
|
|
if you want to work through some math: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_sort#Number_of_comparisons_required_to_sort_a_list
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:46
|
|
|
LP0 ON FIRE posted:thanks that is good info this isn't quite correct. The thing about most sorting algorithms is that they don't require you to compare the whole list to itself at every step. they exploit the nature of arrays or lists to split up the work involved to reduce the number of comparisons involved. a good sorting algorithm, like merge sort, can be proven mathematically to place things in the correct order with no need to check the entire list at the end to verify that it's entirely sorted. it is instead simply a property of the algorithm that things end up sorted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:54
|
|
|
LP0 ON FIRE posted:thanks that is good info sorting is P.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:55
|
|
|
LP0 ON FIRE posted:thanks that is good info no. that is accounted for in the algorithm. take a linear walk through sorted data for example, comparing each element to see if the element is greater than the one before. that's at most n operations where n is the size of the input. if you want to know if an algorithm is formally correct beforehand you should read into induction and proofs and symbolic butt's post e; beaten by cis autodrag OldAlias fucked around with this message at 22:14 on Jun 7, 2017 |
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 21:59
|
|
|
proving primality testing is in p was a cool achievement that got no coverage. everyone blew their load on that stupid E8 categorization. like gj nerds.
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 22:21
|
|
|
LP0 ON FIRE posted:thanks that is good info beadsort
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
drat it okay then i guess i'll try to make an algorithm for finding new monohedral convex pentagonal tilings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pentagonal_tiling
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 22:27
|
|
|
"i guess i'll try to make a new algorithm for [any mathematical problem that has a wikipedia page]" is phd level stuff
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 23:19
|
|
|
hey if a patent clerk can almost singlehanded come up with the equations of general relativity, then i can definitely come up with some wimpy algorithm
|
|
#
?
Jun 7, 2017 23:36
|
|
|
unfortunately all the easy algorithms have already been taken. only the impossible ones remain. it's because of the glut of CS students and useless bachelor's degrees imo
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 04:08
|
|
|
seriously in any bachelor's level algos or data structure course almost everything you study will be from prior to the 70s. all that's left to study are the things that were too hard to do in the last 70 years.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 04:34
|
|
|
when was timsort
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 07:39
|
|
|
nah, there's still tonnes of stuff to work on, it's just usually incremental instead of earthshattering stuff since PhDs students aren't wealthy bored dudes who can afford to spend 10 years on one thing anymore. mine and all my friend's were more about refinement of some tiny area instead of trying to cure cancer. postdocs might do more advanced poo poo, but everyone be chasin dat grant money.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 08:42
|
|
|
LP0 ON FIRE posted:thanks that is good info ah, i think i see what your confusion is: what we certainly know is that p np. for sorting any sorting algorithm will indeed also in effect check whether the list is sorted (since it has little choice but to make repeated comparisons). it is the case in general as well, but it gets into slight technicalities at that point as these are "decision problems" (i.e. only yes/no answers, no actual output) that is, in this informal sense, np is the set of problems where one can in polynomial time *recognize* that a given solution indeed is a solution, where p are the problems where one can in polynomial time *create* a solution (which *implies* being able to recognize it). so, if these are the same, p=np, then it is sufficient that solutions can be recognized, there exists some general way to (efficiently) rework the recognition of solutions into an algorithm for the construction of solutions (and, as this is in polynomial time this general way is more clever than just enumerating all possible solutions) it makes a fair difference to how one can phrase things that the problems are all yes/no problems, but in practical terms the above is largely correct the one reason i can see to think that p could equal np is in the assumptions of that "(efficiently)" above, since complexity theory started out assuming anything that can be done in polynomial time to be somewhat tractable, which has sort of worked out, with most polynomial time algorithms having polynomials like n^2 and n^3. however, it may be that p=np with the "general way" above adding some polynomial like n^1000, making it in practice no better than the dumb enumeration of solutions. in that case the discovery would mostly just kill off the idea that we can view polynomial time as a useful complexity class in itself, and future complexity work would have to be rebuilt with a more carefully restricted class standing in for the tractable
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 09:03
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:seriously in any bachelor's level algos or data structure course almost everything you study will be from prior to the 70s. all that's left to study are the things that were too hard to do in the last 70 years. i'm doing one right now and the book is incomprehensible
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 13:38
|
|
|
Cybernetic Vermin posted:ah, i think i see what your confusion is: what we certainly know is that p np. for sorting any sorting algorithm will indeed also in effect check whether the list is sorted (since it has little choice but to make repeated comparisons). it is the case in general as well, but it gets into slight technicalities at that point as these are "decision problems" (i.e. only yes/no answers, no actual output) i think it has clicked for me and this helps thank you. for finding the best move in chess, depending on how the board is setup, you have to iterate through all the moves and somehow prove that one is the best, which are effected by future moves, etc. that is np. linear sorting is simple y/n to check if it's sorted, even if it needs to make repated comparisons
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 14:50
|
|
|
flakeloaf posted:i'm doing one right now and the book is incomprehensible my experience with algos class was that id feel like i was drowning in incomprehensible math for two weeks at a time and then suddenly something would click, then we'd move onto the next topic and it started all over again.
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 15:47
|
|
|
cis autodrag posted:my experience with algos class was that id feel like i was drowning in incomprehensible math for two weeks at a time and then suddenly something would click, then we'd move onto the next topic and it started all over again. algos class seems like one that really benefits from being taught by someone who is skilled at teaching, not just algorithms. mine was more of an infodump (with CLRS as the text lmao) and i feel like i'll have to do a bunch of self study the next time im out interviewing because i never really got it 
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 15:57
|
|
|
carry on then posted:algos class seems like one that really benefits from being taught by someone who is skilled at teaching, not just algorithms. mine was more of an infodump (with CLRS as the text lmao) and i feel like i'll have to do a bunch of self study the next time im out interviewing because i never really got it so what you're saying is that distance learning data structures and algorithms is going to make me doubt the "ignore it for 5 months and then do the entire curriculum in 3 weeks" strategy
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 16:06
|
|
|
carry on then posted:algos class seems like one that really benefits from being taught by someone who is skilled at teaching, not just algorithms. mine was more of an infodump (with CLRS as the text lmao) and i feel like i'll have to do a bunch of self study the next time im out interviewing because i never really got it agreed. my professor was this guy and while he is clearly brilliant he was a struggle to understand at times: http://www.cs.wisc.edu/people/dieter his domain of research was specifically trying to prove p=np
|
|
#
?
Jun 8, 2017 16:37
|
|
|
so what is the takeaway from this meeting? Are we all good with P=NP? Should I schedule a follow up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 00:59
|
|
|
i think all we can do is prove it when everyone says they're okay with it, that's the same thing right
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 01:24
|
|
|
the only way P=NP can be true is if N=1, and while I have no idea what N is, i have to point out that there are infinitely more numbers that are not 1 than numbers that are, so it seems pretty unlikely to be the case
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 01:28
|
|
|
I talked to someone in college who had an amazing proof of P=NP, and part of it boiled down to "why would the professor bother asking about it unless it was true"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 01:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 05:38 |
|
|
Soricidus posted:the only way P=NP can be true is if N=1, and while I have no idea what N is, i have to point out that there are infinitely more numbers that are not 1 than numbers that are, so it seems pretty unlikely to be the case *or* if P=0 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2017 02:17
|
|
